How do pro-choice people actually see the unborn child?

The only TV I watch anymore is Netflix. And in particular, I watch crime dramas, especially British ones. Currently I am watching Dicte from Denmark.

Dicte is a crime reporter. The show is excellent, although the third season has a bit too much personal angst in it for my liking, and not enough crime drama. Anyway...

(Spoiler alert)

The other night we watched episode six of the third season. In it Dicte's daughter Rose discovers she is pregnant. Rose has a conversation with her mother and tells her that she will have an abortion She thinks she is four weeks pregnant. But she has misgivings and says to her mother:

"I can't help wondering if I'm carrying a great person."

Dicte responds:

"Yes but you know what? Don't think of it as a person right now. But rather as a little frog."

Obviously I have a problem with that frog comment. It is a pro-abortion thing to say about a young fetus. But typical of some who deny the humanity of the unborn.

Anyway, when Rose goes for an ultrasound, she finds out that she is in fact 18 weeks pregnant. Anne (midwife and friend to Dicte and Rose) does the ultrasound. 

Ann explains (that in Denmark) you can't have an abortion after 12 weeks, unless the mother or her baby (and notice Anne does call the fetus a "baby") has a condition of some sort. 

So Rose has to keep her baby because it is now too late to abort. Anne says that it is "fantastic". A subsequent scene has Rose telling her parents that she is 4 and 1/2 months pregnant; she shows them the ultrasound pics; and everyone is joyous. 

From wanting to abort, to being happy about the baby. Because the unborn child had reached the point of looking like a baby and not a "frog"?

This surprised me, since pro-life people already believe the unborn child is a human being at conception. But in this case when the child was only four weeks along, abortion is fine. Rose is willing and wants to have an abortion. But as soon as she (and everyone else) realizes that legally she can't have the abortion anymore, every one's attitude changes to happiness--they see the humanity of the child in her pictures (and remember before this it was like a frog). Is it the fact that the child looks human, that everyone accepts the child, or is it because Rose can no longer abort her child because it's too late, and that choice is gone? 

Regardless, what if Canada did the same thing? What if Parliament decided that abortion would be illegal after 12 weeks? If a socialist country like Denmark can have a restrictions on abortion, why can't we?

Are you speaking for me?

Quite a lot of arrogance in this editorial in the Calgary Herald:
"Most Canadians do not agree with Langley MP Mark Warawa's views on abortion, nor his wish, and the hope of a small group of other backbench Conservative MPs, to reduce the access of Canadian women to abortion services."

This anonymous writer apparently knows that most Canadians do not agree with Mr. Warawa's views on abortion. Must be a mind reader. And a genius. Especially since 92% of Canadians are against sex-selection abortion. You'd think an editorial writer of a major Canadian newspaper would get his facts right.

Then this:
"Most Canadians believe that is a choice that should be left to individual women and their doctors. We have long agreed."

And no, we have not "long agreed" Mr. editorial writer, that the "choice" of killing unborn children should be left up to women and their doctors. Polls have told you this over and over again that we do not agree with this world view.

The writer must attend the school of the pinko lefto feminists that regurgitate this propaganda every minute of every day. The politically correct dogma of their "woman's right to choose" ideology that is neither a right nor agreed upon by the masses.

And I really wish they would finish the sentence on that little phrase but they never seem to have the courage to do so, so please allow me to do it for you:
"A woman's right to choose to deliberately end the life of another human being."

Sorry Mr. anonymous editorial writer, we don't agree now; we never have agreed; we never will agree. Sorry to burst your choice bubble.

I like that. Choice Bubble. Full of hot air.

Born a girl is a deadly devastation

The UN estimates that there are 200 million missing girls in the world today.

Mostly in China and India.

Watch this video by rapper Omékongo Dibinga brought to you by It's a Girl:
"...We kill innocent victims who have no choice..."

Won't our political leaders: Mr. Harper, Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Rae, please protect girls by supporting Motion 408?

Won't all political parties please condemn sex selection abortion?

Won't Canada please condemn Gendercide?

I think you're pulling my leg

Dear Mr. Clark,

I have to say that I found this editorial astoundingly rude, condescending, and disrespectful of Canadians in general and pro-lifers in particular. Since this was written as an editorial, I am assuming that you are speaking for your newspaper, which, I won't lie to you, is a scary thought indeed.

"The debate is over and lost" you say? I actually found that statement to be all of the above but also rip-roaring funny as well. Do you think that because you have made this proclamation we will now quietly leave the room with our tails between our legs? I don't think so.

I also see that you buy into that greatest myth of all time, the one that begins with "women" and ends with "the right to have control over their bodies". Earth to The Province: the unborn child is someone else's body and nobody has any right to kill it. Got it?

And "private choice"? Well as long as I and my fellow Canadians are paying for this non-medically-necessary "choice", that by the way, dismembers a defenceless, voiceless, tiny human being by forcefully removing it and ultimately killing it--well that "choice" isn't private anymore, so yes we will have our say, and we will have a role, and we will be that voice, for those who have no voice.

It's called standing up for human rights. It's a long and cherished human condition and preoccupation, look it up sometime. You might learn something new.

The debate is over you say? Not by a long shot. But if you choose, you can believe what you like.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Complicated ethics - not

I am still puzzling why pregnancy reductions, along with sex-selection abortions, could or would, cause any consternation among "pro-choice" people.

Abortion advocates always tell us that abortion is all about it being a "woman’s choice" to end any pregnancy, whenever she chooses, and for any reason she chooses. So why would these two reasons for abortions be any worse than any other myriad of choices a woman can have to abort a child? This strikes me as rather illogical.

But I think I’ve come to actually understanding it. It is because these two particular "reasons" themselves have, or are becoming, widely known. And the reasons don’t sit right with everybody including some "pro-choicers".

In other words, if we ignore these two reasons for having an abortion, all other reasons a woman can have are usually private, so they don’t get put into a public "reason".

"Pro-choicers" simply rationalize a woman’s choice to abort as being a choice she made, but we don’t usually know what the reason was for that choice. We only know she has "chosen" to terminate her pregnancy. And "pro-choicers" will say, that a woman has a "right" to do that.

As an example, there are any number of other reasons women choose to have an abortion. For instance, because she can’t raise a child herself. Or because she is poor. Or because she forgot to take birth control. Or because she will not be able to go to the prom.

Now if we were to take any one of these other reasons and all of a sudden say "We now know that many women are aborting their unborn babies because it will interfere with a woman’s ability to attend her prom", there would be (like in a pregnancy reduction) a lot of "complicated ethics" coming into play here, because now we have provided an actual reason why a subset of women are aborting their babies.

We rightly judge that reason as being valid or not. And many people, even those of the "pro-choice" persuasion, get uncomfortable, depending on that reason.

As long as we stick to that convenient euphemistic "choice" word, it’s much easier to trick our moral compass into thinking any abortion is okay. In fact, we really don’t want to know the reason do we?

If men ruled the world

Regarding the book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men by Mara Hvistendahl: Frankly, I'm puzzled.

Why is abortion for sex-selection any more horrific than abortion because of any other "choice"? There is no difference. Once we allow "choice" to be normalized, which we have done now for over 40 years in Canada, it's all kind of moot.

A woman can abort her child for any reason she chooses, and sex-selection is simply one more of the myriad of choices a woman can make.

She can choose to have an abortion because it is inconvenient, or because she forgot her pill, or because she needs to finish her degree, or because she broke up with her boy friend. Or because...whatever.

Once we started sliding down the slippery slope of choice abortion, all choice abortions are legitimized, sanctioned and yes, even celebrated.

So I was wondering why some women like Mara Hvistendahl seem to bet be getting kind of antsy about the whole sex-selection abortion thing--when all other kinds of choice abortions are completely acceptable.

And then I looked at the title of her book, and I had an ah-ha moment. It's the men. Those darn misogynist men are trying to run the world and if we start aborting all the women, well, there won't be any of us left. And without women, there will be no babies. And without babies, well, the world will end. And the feminists won't be able to run the show anymore. Because there won't be any.

Okay, so back to the drawing board.

Hear ye, hear ye, all ye feminists, especially ye uber-feminists: You can have a choice abortion for any reason, except, you know, that one. You can't choose to abort a child if she's a female. Spread the word.